A year-old, but only just released interview with then Presidential candidate Joe Biden reveals the extent of his determination to move against gun-owners.
The National Rifle Association is flat-out accusing the paper of burying the interview because it would have been too damaging to the Biden campaign, and since the paper itself hasn’t explained why the editorial board waited a year to release a full transcript, that explanation is as good as any at the moment.
The paper’s interview with Biden covers a lot of ground, but gun control is one of the first issues that the editors quizzed him about; specifically, how he would navigate his gun and magazine ban through Congress. Biden responded by pointing out that he got it done back in 1994, and said what’s changed since then is the formation of a larger “gun safety” movement.
. . .
I would have loved for the editors of the Las Vegas Sun to have interrupted Biden to ask a question at that point; there are an estimated 20-million semi-automatic rifles in the United States (that number’s quite a bit larger now, but the interview was done in January of 2020) and more than 150-million ammunition magazines that can hold more than ten rounds of ammunition. How successful do you really think you’ll be in defending this law in court or enforcing it on the street, and how many millions of Americans are you willing to put in prison if they disobey?
I don’t know how Biden would have responded, because he’s never really faced any pushback from the media when it comes to his gun control positions. Interviewers just nod and smile, because they’re usually in full agreement with him.
. . .
Remember, this interview was conducted a year ago, and Biden had no idea he’d be looking at a 50-50 Senate. The idea of including his gun ban in a larger bill is still worrisome, however, because Biden could include in a reconciliation bill that only requires 51 votes for approval. I think that voting for Biden’s gun ban would be the end of Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema’s political careers, and would give the GOP their number one issue to run on in 2022, but it could still very well happen, and he wouldn’t need a single Republican to go along with it.
Biden then briefly talked about the need to repeal the Lawful Commerce in Arms Act so that gun manufacturers could be sued for the third-party actions of criminals before he returned to his gun ban.
There's more at the link.
It goes without saying that most American gun-owners won't comply with any such legislation. Agreement on that is near-unanimous, and it's already been demonstrated in places like Connecticut and New York state. I don't expect that to change.
However, bear in mind that the mere passage of that bill will give the Deep State an excuse to bear down on individuals who come to their attention in other ways. You're arrested under suspicion of being part of a demonstration at the Capitol? Well, while you're incarcerated and we're investigating the case, why don't we execute a search warrant at your home? Oh, look at this - illegal guns! That's an additional felony charge for each one, and for every round of ammunition above the legal limit of what you can store at home. Another thing: since these illegal weapons were stored in your home, it's clearly a location where crime was planned and/or perpetrated, so we're going to confiscate it as the proceeds of crime. Your wife and kids? Oh, I'm sure they'll be fine on the streets. There's a homeless shelter only six or seven blocks away.
I don't know how successful we'll be at stopping such legislation. We've already seen that we can't trust Republicans to vote against clearly unconstitutional measures such as the impeachment of a former President who no longer holds office. What makes you think RINO's like that will stand up for the Second Amendment?
It may come down to direct intervention with lawmakers who'll vote for the legislation. They may have to have it pointed out to them that they'll be held accountable for their votes - and that won't be just a matter of words. Unconstitutional laws, and support for them, will lead to push-back. Call it the law of intended consequences, if you will. Certainly, they shouldn't bank on re-election.